It won't replace artillery.
I like that Crusader system. I hope that Republican Representative J.C. Watts prevails in this dispute and that the Crusader system is built.
Not all of our future enemies will be 3rd or 4th World powers such as Afghanistan or Somalia. The day may well come when the US faces a real power hostile to our country (and don't think that it can't happen either, as history is full of nothing but shifting alliances, and thousands of wars). Whether it be China or Russia or some other power, such as maybe an alliance of the world's muslim nations, we may very well need the weapons to win battles on battlefields. Air power alone may not be enough to do the job. Small arms won't win, either, if the enemy can defend against these or overwhelm them.
I think we're making a huge strategic mistake to the degree our country, as a matter of policy, abandons artillery, tanks, and other necessities of winning wars.
-----------------------
It is, by necessity. Can you imagine a gun that would fire 45,000 155 mm howitzer shells a minute? The weight of ammunition require to run the thing for ten seconds would be approximately the weight of New York. Somebody has their head up their behind on this concept.
An 80 ton cannon can't get to where it needs to be in order to acquire its target quickly enough.
A bomber or fighter can.
The American 21st Century blitzkrieg will make der Schickelgruber's move across Europe seem cumbersome and slow.
Sounds like artilery to me. It may not have really large shells but, I wouldn't want to be in that 50-meter wide, two mile long corridor when they arrived. Sounds like a new way of delivering cluster munitions. Could be very effective.